Same colors for different functions: implications for the evolution of carotenoid-based ornamentation
Data files
May 19, 2022 version files 15.36 MB
-
1_Mean_values_per_species.csv
7.07 KB
-
2_ID_of_museum_skins.csv
8.31 KB
-
Acanthis_flammea.csv
181.22 KB
-
Acanthis_hornemanni.csv
192.75 KB
-
Carduelis_caniceps.csv
177.27 KB
-
Carduelis_carduelis.csv
189.87 KB
-
Carduelis_citrinella.csv
183.66 KB
-
Chloris_ambigua.csv
177.46 KB
-
Chloris_chloris.csv
184.48 KB
-
Chloris_sinica.csv
183.65 KB
-
Chloris_spinoides.csv
189.31 KB
-
Crithagra_albogularis.csv
336.25 KB
-
Crithagra_atrogularis.csv
338.72 KB
-
Crithagra_burtoni.csv
321.53 KB
-
Crithagra_capistrata.csv
325.38 KB
-
Crithagra_citrinelloides.csv
327.16 KB
-
Crithagra_donaldsoni.csv
333.51 KB
-
Crithagra_dorsostriata.csv
330.84 KB
-
Crithagra_flaviventris.csv
327.60 KB
-
Crithagra_gularis.csv
331.62 KB
-
Crithagra_koliensis.csv
326.62 KB
-
Crithagra_leucoptera.csv
92.14 KB
-
Crithagra_leucopygia.csv
342.41 KB
-
Crithagra_menachensis.csv
334.77 KB
-
Crithagra_mennelli.csv
335.56 KB
-
Crithagra_mozambica.csv
332.89 KB
-
Crithagra_rothschildi.csv
333.63 KB
-
Crithagra_rufobrunnea.csv
312.23 KB
-
Crithagra_scotops.csv
323.88 KB
-
Crithagra_striolata.csv
318.94 KB
-
Crithagra_sulphurata.csv
327.51 KB
-
Crithagra_totta.csv
322.75 KB
-
Crithagra_tristriata.csv
327.82 KB
-
Linaria_cannabina.csv
180.17 KB
-
Linaria_flavirostris.csv
175.97 KB
-
Linaria_johannis.csv
186.64 KB
-
Linaria_yemenensis.csv
175.55 KB
-
README.txt
2.31 KB
-
Serinus_alario.csv
312.63 KB
-
Serinus_canaria.csv
327.14 KB
-
Serinus_canicollis.csv
324.23 KB
-
Serinus_flavivertex.csv
325.92 KB
-
Serinus_nigriceps.csv
324 KB
-
Serinus_pusillus.csv
327.30 KB
-
Serinus_serinus.csv
333.06 KB
-
Serinus_syriacus.csv
335.79 KB
-
Spinus_atratus.csv
171.46 KB
-
Spinus_atriceps.csv
198.59 KB
-
Spinus_barbatus.csv
180.58 KB
-
Spinus_cucullatus.csv
180.03 KB
-
Spinus_dominicensis.csv
87.42 KB
-
Spinus_lawrencei.csv
181.62 KB
-
Spinus_magellanicus.csv
184.81 KB
-
Spinus_notatus.csv
184.02 KB
-
Spinus_pinus.csv
183.11 KB
-
Spinus_psaltria.csv
184.77 KB
-
Spinus_siemiradzkii.csv
185.02 KB
-
Spinus_spinescens.csv
179.50 KB
-
Spinus_spinus.csv
186.11 KB
-
Spinus_thibetanus.csv
323.33 KB
-
Spinus_tristis.csv
189.09 KB
-
Spinus_uropygialis.csv
185.02 KB
-
Spinus_xanthogastrus.csv
177.66 KB
-
Spinus_yarrellii.csv
186.18 KB
Abstract
Sexual ornamentation is often assumed to be costly, allowing honest signaling of individual quality, and carotenoid-based colors were proposed to bear significant costs. If carotenoid-based colors are costly to produce, sexually-selected signals should use more concentrated carotenoid pigments and have more saturated color than non-sexual signals, where honesty-guaranteeing costs are not required. We tested this prediction comparing carotenoid-based colors across canaries, goldfinches and allies, because many of these species use yellow plumage as sexual ornamentation, but also have yellow rumps that appear to be non-sexual flash marks. Only in the breast, but not the rump, was there an asymmetric co-distribution of male and female color saturation, with males similarly or more saturated than females, indicating evolution of breast color by sexual selection. Yellow was not consistently more saturated in the breast than in the rump, and the co-distribution of rump and breast color saturation indicated that saturated rumps can persist irrespective of breast color. This challenges the assumption that carotenoid-based colors bear significant costs. The use of carotenoid coloration as sexual signals in this clade may instead be due to social costs, cost-free index mechanisms for signaling quality, and/or socially-monogamous species evolving low-cost signals to mostly discriminate against low-quality mates.